ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that once the underlying addition forming the basis of the penalty is deleted, the penalty proceedings automatically collapse. The pendency of a further appeal by the Revenue does not negate the binding effect of the Tribunal's order.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no justification for a protective assessment in the hands of PILCOM. It held that PILCOM was merely a managing committee and not an independent entity, and that income from matches played outside India was wrongly considered as the income of the assessee (BCCI).

The Tribunal held that Section 115BBDA is not applicable as the dividend was from a foreign company and received in a later financial year. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not justified.

The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had provided adequate opportunity of hearing. However, it found that the reopening notice under Section 148 was issued beyond four years without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and the reasons recorded were factually incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the evidentiary material relied upon by the assessee had not been comprehensively examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the competent authority as prescribed under Section 151(ii) of the Act. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer was bad in law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. It held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation, rendering the subsequent assessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal found that the First Appellate Authority issued a notice for the wrong assessment year and passed an order despite the appellant pointing out the discrepancy. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the First Appellate Authority.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party material without independent corroboration and without confronting the assessee with the primary evidence are unsustainable. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party material without independent corroboration and without confronting the assessee with the primary evidence are unsustainable. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party material without independent corroboration and without confronting the assessee with the primary evidence are unsustainable. The Tribunal followed its own previous decisions on identical facts.

The Tribunal found that the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements and cash flow statements, to establish the source of the cash deposits. The revenue failed to produce any material to disprove the availability of cash.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from deposits made with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The reliance on the Totgar's case by the lower authorities was considered misplaced as that case dealt with a different sub-section and did not address interest income from cooperative banks.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to consider additional evidence submitted by the assessee, allowing a reasonable cause for not filing them earlier. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on account of donations and contributions, finding that the expenditure was for employee welfare and business purposes, not mere donations. The allowability of expenditure depends on its true nature, not its accounting head.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted inquiries, and the distinction between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry' is crucial. Since inquiries were made, even if considered inadequate by the PCIT, Section 263 could not be invoked. The revisionary order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted, the penalty under Section 270A would not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was affirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on account of donations and contributions, finding that the expenditure was for employee welfare and business purposes, not mere donations. The allowability of expenditure depends on its true nature, not its accounting head.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered were commercial in nature, not royalty under Section 9(1)(vi) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-Netherlands DTAA. It also found that the services did not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they did not make technical knowledge available and the assessee had no Permanent Establishment in India.

The Tribunal held that the AO could not make an addition for loan processing fees as the original notice under Section 148 was based on escaped interest income, not processing fees. A fresh notice would have been required for the latter.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the benefit of Section 54 cannot be denied solely due to joint ownership of the new property with the wife, especially when the funds originated from the assessee. Judicial precedents support allowing the deduction in such cases.

The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the share transaction details provided by the assessee and noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not independently scrutinized the evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after proper factual verification.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity due to insufficient time and personal circumstances. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documents proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions, including repayment and TDS deduction. A retracted statement alone cannot be the basis for additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documents proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions, including repayment and TDS deduction. A retracted statement alone cannot be the basis for additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing documents proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions, including repayment and TDS deduction. A retracted statement alone cannot be the basis for additions.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee's claim of turnover being below the threshold was a bald assertion. The repeated failure to produce books of account prevented verification of the conditions for exemption from tax audit.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, following its own decision in Audi AG's case for AY 2023-24 and earlier assessment years (2009-10 to 2014-15). The Tribunal noted that the facts and grounds of appeal in the present case were similar to the earlier cases. The core reasoning, as extracted from the earlier decision, was that the Assessing Officer was not justified in invoking Section 9 of the Act and Article 5 of the Indo-Germany Tax Treaty to conclude that the assessee had a PE in India. The Tribunal found that VW Group sales (SAVWIPL) was an independent and separate entity engaged in selling fully built-up cars imported from the assessee, and it was not acting on behalf of Audi AG, nor was Audi AG selling cars through VW Group sales. The cars were sold on a principal-to-principal basis. Therefore, the grounds relating to the existence of a PE (Fixed Place PE and DAPE) were allowed. Consequently, the grounds relating to the attribution of income and estimation of gross profit became academic. The ground relating to deduction for marketing and promotional expenses was also rendered academic as the income was held not taxable in India. Regarding interest under Section 234B, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the tax/interest by following the decision in NGC Network Asia LLC, considering that the assessee is a foreign company and its income is subject to TDS, and it has no liability to pay advance tax. The Tribunal did not explicitly address the ground regarding penalty proceedings under Section 270A, but by allowing the primary grounds, the basis for such penalty would be removed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions after appreciating the facts and evidence. The AO had made additions without sufficient investigation or contrary evidence, and the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing necessary documentation.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. Therefore, the matters were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the omission to reflect brought forward losses in a subsequent year's return was an inadvertent error and did not extinguish the assessee's right to carry forward and set off these losses, as they were validly determined in the original year.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been quashed by a coordinate bench. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is a valuable statutory right and should be decided on merits. It found merit in the assessee's contention that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits due to procedural defaults.

The Tribunal found that while previous ITAT orders favored the assessee, the assessee's working for the current year showed a significant change. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication to verify the assessee's revised working and its comparison with earlier years.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It admitted an additional ground challenging the AO's jurisdiction, holding that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid when Section 153C was applicable. Consequently, the assessment orders and all actions taken were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It admitted an additional ground challenging the AO's jurisdiction, holding that reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were invalid when Section 153C was applicable. Consequently, the assessment orders and all actions taken were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing purchase bills, contract notes, demat statements, and bank statements, which were not doubted by the authorities. Relying on previous judgments concerning the same script and the jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was invalid as it was obtained from the wrong authority. This jurisdictional defect rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that interest received from overseas branches is not taxable as it's a transaction with self. It also allowed loss on revaluation of foreign exchange contracts and depreciation on investments, following established precedents and accounting principles.

The Tribunal held that interest received from overseas branches is not taxable as it's a transaction with self. It also allowed loss on revaluation of foreign exchange contracts and depreciation on investments, following established precedents and accounting principles.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee is an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. It further upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute the arm's length commission on the average of the opening and closing outstanding loan balances.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee is an international transaction under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act. It further upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to compute the arm's length commission on the average of the opening and closing outstanding loan balances.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing details such as PAN, balance sheets, and bank statements of the investing companies. The Assessing Officer failed to establish any direct or indirect link of the money's outward movement from the assessee and its subsequent receipt as application money.

The Tribunal held that proportionate interest on the loan was not disallowable as sufficient interest-free funds were available. It also ruled that interest on fixed deposits for bank guarantee was a business receipt to be adjusted against project costs, and the disallowance of labour/material charges was based on a misunderstanding of accounts.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded an effective opportunity to present submissions before the CIT(A). Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to ensure substantial justice.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee were in the nature of procurement support and commercial agency functions, not FTS as defined in Article 12(4) of the India-Switzerland DTAA. Since the assessee had no Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, the commission income was not taxable in India.